Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (2) TMI 2053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....il revision petition has been preferred against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.551 of 2018 in O.S.No.257 of 2014. I.A.No.551 of 2018 was preferred by the first defendant for receiving additional documents. 2. In the said application, the petitioner has contended that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction and the case was posted at the stage of examination of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the petitioners 3 to 6 which are not public documents and further, they have also the xerox copies. Further, in view of the statement given before the Commissioner, these documents cannot be received by the Court. The respondent also contended that the documents are not related to the property that is involved in the suit and the other documents that is only receipt of the complaint preferred bef....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which, the she does not know about the case and only her husband appear before the Court and he will proceed with the case. The statement recorded by the Commissioner on examination of the petitioner/defendant had also filed before the Court and the same is also pursued. The clear statement given by the petitioner to the Commissioner is that ..... Hence, the trial Court observed a possession of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er was not considered by the trial Court and in that view, the trial Court dismissed the said petition fled by the petitioner. However, the petitioner contended that he has no objection to mark any documents in which, the husband of the first defendant can be examined and the documents can be marked only when it relates to the second defendant. But no documents mentioned by the first defendant/pe....